Standardize a country name to a consistent canonical form. Handles variations like 'Great Britain', 'UK', 'United Kingdom'. Cost: $0.01 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | Country name to standardize | |
| algorithm | No | Algorithm variant (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context via cost disclosure ($0.01 USDC via x402) but does not address the destructiveHint annotation (true) or explain side effects. The openWorldHint and idempotentHint are not discussed. Some useful behavior is added, but gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise with only two sentences, no redundant information, and places the core purpose first. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, but the description implies the output is a standardized country name. It covers cost and purpose well. However, it lacks explanation of error handling or algorithm variant effects, and the behavioral transparency gap reduces completeness slightly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for both 'country' and 'algorithm' parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as format or constraints, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Standardize a country name to a consistent canonical form.' It provides specific examples like 'Great Britain', 'UK', 'United Kingdom', which differentiates it clearly from siblings such as 'interzoid_country_info' that deal with information rather than standardization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on when to use the tool (standardizing country names with variations) and mentions the cost. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling list helps differentiate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct data operations (matching, standardization, enrichment) with clear descriptions. Minor overlaps exist, e.g., address_match_advanced vs global_address_match, but descriptions differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent 'interzoid_descriptive_function' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict purpose from the name.
58 tools is high for a single server, exceeding the typical 3-15 range. While each serves a specific data enrichment function, the quantity may overwhelm agents without clear categorization.
The tool surface covers a broad domain including address, company, person, and financial data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no reverse IP lookup, limited social media coverage), but core data needs are well-addressed.
